more eu messing

[judgie]

taken from the www.fbhvc.co.uk/news/index.htm
FIVA agree on 'Historic' vehicle definition
At the annual FIVA General Assembly held in Brussels in October, part of the agenda was dedicated to finalising a definition of a ‘historic’ vehicle, a hot topic for a number of years. The wording agreed is:

FIVA defines a historic vehicle as a mechanically propelled road vehicle:

which is at least 30 years old;
which is preserved and maintained in a historically correct condition;
which is not used as a means of daily transport;
and which is therefore a part of our technical and cultural heritage.

This definition is important for a number of reasons, but mostly for political lobbying purposes. For example, the EU Commission have given indications that while they are happy to consider legislative exemptions for a reasonably small number of vehicles, used for relatively low mileages, they would become concerned if the number of vehicles or the mileage they covered grew too large. It is hoped that by lifting the defined age to 30 and excluding vehicles used for daily transport, this will be avoided.

The new definition will be officially effective for FIVA in 2010, but it will start to be used for some purposes immediately. Its adoption by FIVA does not mean that individual countries will use it for all purposes, and members may be assured that FBHVC will not cease to represent the interests of vehicles it currently covers.

lot more info on there and it don't make good reading.
now i'm all for proper legal us of any vehicle on the road but having some bloke the eu goverment telling me when and how i can use my historic car is not on.

cheers rob

[akku]

Hmmmm... I've seen this before and not mentioned it as there is no indication that the UK will take it up.

Frankly I don't want my car declared some kind of "historic hobby thing" class. This is why I was originally arguing against the free road tax. I expect to be able to use any car I own on a daily basis, for commuting or for business. I expect to be able to maintain it in an "unauthentic" fashion to suit my needs.

If this means I have to pay road tax to do so then, meh. I'd rather not but its a difficult argument to make that a daily driven car should get free road tax. But then I think my views on road tax being free for all are well known but again, meh.

Of course these definitions probably have no bearing on road tax, the tax office themselves have a defintion of a classic car being 30 years old and worth no less than £10,000 or something. Its a definition used in depreciation and asset value excemption stuff.

It may well be that this "defintion" is used to excempt people from certain "black boxes" for road charging in the future or whatever.

Many EU nations have no definitions of "classic/historic" at all, so they have to start somewhere.

[v8lee]

Sounds like an attempt to categorise as an attempt to either increase revenue from or (more likely) restrict the use of anything older than 30 years old.

It would also seem to point towards only vehicles fitting into this category being classified as "historic", whilst anything else which is either less than 30 years but more than say 3, 5 or 10 years being legislated off the road completely for environmental or other such made up reasons.

Anything which has been modified or altered from the manufacturer's specifications in any way must also be in the gunsights.

Like AK, I value my right to drive what I want, when I want regardless of age, specification but not roadworthyness. All that is required, then, is a stringent (but reasonable) MOT inspection?

[akku]

I think its so that there is a convenient get out for new legislation. For example

All cars (except "Historic Vehicles") must be fitted with a GPS device for active road tolling

or

All cars (except "historic vehicles") must be fitted with emissions equipment to meet such-and-such standard

or

All cars (except historic vehicles) must display EU standard number plate as defined in standard blah blah blah

which (as you say) could make life difficult either

1. for people with modern classics which don't hit the historic definition but are hard to convert to the new specs or equipment

2. people with 30+ year old cars they want to continue to daily drive or modify.

However, no sign as yet of this being used for any legal purpose in the UK.

But next time a politician talks about "a historic vehicle" we know exactly what they mean, whether we agree with the defintion or not, its there in black & white.

[dollywobbler]

It's a tricky one, but not necessarily bad. How about "All vehicles (except historic vehicles) must be fitted with satellite-tracking speed limiters?"

As you say though Akku, given that "historic" seems to mean "barely used," it doesn't bode well for those of us using classics every day. Though when oil disappears (which it will do one day) that won't help either.

[akku]

internal combustion engines can be run on a variety of alternative fuels including, but not limited to ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, methane, propane, and complex compounds based on other chemicals. The real reason we need oil in our cars is to lubricate them, not sure where the synthetic technology has got to on that (so-called synthetic oils we use today are still petrolchemical - based on oil)

I wouldn't want an electronic speed limiter on my car, but on a carb fed lump how hard could it be to bypass it? ;D

[dugong]

Jan 5, 2009 14:22:26 GMT akku said:

I wouldn't want an electronic speed limiter on my car, but on a carb fed lump how hard could it be to bypass it? ;D

Piece of curse word.

I have a massive hammer ;D

[Lewis]

A friend on another forum replied with something that's worth bearing in mind, especially for those that instantly get the wrong end of the stick, or negative about it:

Before everyone goes off alarming, these FIVA guidelines are a good thing, and that is why they are supported by the British Federation.

It has been crystallised, as said above, by the NEED to react to impending emissions regulations in 2010, which would effectively outlaw ALL classic vehicles and have them taken off the road.

In order to protect classic vehicles, the old car bodies all over Europe have for once come together to produce a workable set of proposals (note the word 'proposals').Obviously, as a starting point they had to define a classic car, hence the definition they have come up with, which is broad enough to roll in just about everybody. The "daily use" bit is smoke and mirrors and as Julian says, would be impossible to police. It is there to calm certain European countries whose complex insurance legislation makes it impossible to insure a classic unless you have regular use of another vehicle.

The 30 year date was used because it is already the accepted marker in almost all other European countries except the UK.

It is intended to be a rolling marker, and the 1980 date mentioned is, as far as I am aware, just an alternative suggestion that was proposed at one point.

None of this has sod all to do with car tax - that as now, will remain at the discretion of individual governments.

Before we jumped off of the precipice into recession, the All Party Working Group of MP's had just about got the Treasury to accept the return of the rolling car tax exemption, albeit at a 30 year cut off instead of the old 25 year bringing the UK into line with a number of Euro countries. However to pay for it there was going to be an "adminstrative" charge at a flat rate of £10 each time you renewed. The adminstrative charge was going to be able to reviewed 5 yearly only, and only then in line with inflation to prevent government stealthily jacking it back up. Also in line with European nations, the UK government was to introduce a cash incentive to scrap vehicles between 18 and 30 years old (18 years are the last vehicles sold before catalysts became a legal requirement). This was going to be the sterling equivalent of Euro1000 per vehicle (that's gone up a bit!).


I am in fairly regular contact with the principle politicians behind the scenes on this, and they have been chipping away at it for over 5 years. Given the present circumstances, when or if this happens is a good question.

FIVA and the British Federation deserve our support here. There are a surprisingly large number of people who would gladly have all old cars taken off the roads and confined to museums; indeed such a proposal has a weighty following in Brussels. The work FIVA are doing will guarantee old cars a place on Europe's roads for at least twenty years, and then the debate will start again.

[maskedavenger]

ITS DIFFICULT NOT TO BE NEGATIVE WHERE THE GOVERMENT ARE CONCERNED

[Lewis]

Haha, very true that

[Deleted]

i've said it before they can fit these so called gadgets to my cars as long as
A: they pay for them to be fitted without any damage being caused to my cars .
B: they don't moan when said gadgets stop working (due to no fault of my own honest osifer ) after all old cars are inherently unreliable or so they keep telling us ;D
and C: they don't interfere with any cars performance when at a track
but if they start telling people what and when i can drive all they will achieve is to annoy people after all i never aggreed to be in the EU

[fredtransit]

^What he said, if they want me to have one, they can pay for it (or er, 32....)

[akku]

Just to make a pedantic and somewhat OT point here, although the EU "harmonisation" of these sort of regulations garners a lot of attention, these things are in reality little if anything to do with the EU as other countries which are not even on the same continent are proposing/doing similar things. Whether we are in the EU or not has no bearing on the overall direction which taxation/environment/transport/etc. policy takes. Its convenient for many politicians to give the impression its all down to the EU, but thats only like when I make an unpopular decission at work I tell people its the directors making me do it even if it were my idea...

I'd take issue with the part of the statement which says "It has been crystallised, as said above, by the NEED to react to impending emissions regulations in 2010, which would effectively outlaw ALL classic vehicles and have them taken off the road."

Rephrase the legislation then. We have *never* retrospectively applied emissions restrictions on older or existing vehicles so this is new legislation, new rules and this is probably the most concerning element of the whole deal. The implication of this statement is that any car which is less than 30 years old and cannot meet 2010 emissions standards will be banned off the road. Can that be right?

[v8lee]

AK I think that's the gyst of it.

Now imagine the following scenario:

* Government decides that from (say) Jan 1st, 2010 all new cars must have a tracker fitted and it is illegal to remove it.
* Government legislates that no vehicle over 5 years old can be driven on the road (unless "historic" (see above for definition)) because of environmental blah blah blah...
* Hey Presto! By 2015 all cars are under 5 years old and have a tracker fitted. Any vehicle without a tracker is illegal, apart from legitimately historic ones which are severely restricted in their use.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I am absolutely convinced that older vehicles will be legislated off our roads within the next few years.

[fredtransit]

Time to flag out methinks! Anybody know how to register a vehicle (light commercial, class7 MOT here) in Lithuania?

[akku]

Jan 6, 2009 12:19:00 GMT v8lee said:

Now imagine the following scenario:

thats exactly the scenario I had imagined already.

I don't much like it.

I don't see any proposals which would actually bring that about. But it is far from inconceivable. I can also see that most of the public would broadly back that kind of programme if sold to them with sufficient "ecological" and "safety" spin. Doubtless "helping our economy recover from recession" as well.

[oddball]

"1984" anyone?

Orwell was a few years out but the rest of it is coming true bit by bit.

Not that I want to sound negative or anything....

[marinanut]

Jan 6, 2009 19:36:08 GMT oddball said:

"1984" anyone?

Orwell was a few years out but the rest of it is coming true bit by bit.

Not that I want to sound negative or anything....

Watch 'V for Vendetta' and be scared, be very scared........

[murran]

its all rubbish spin from brussels.
next week the're all guna sit down and discuss how every member of the eu needs to have the correct size of nipple.......
they'll measure all their own nipple sizes, take an average of the results. then theyll try to pass some legislation that states every one with un average nipples must wear a tracking device or have their nipples sugically altered to be average.......
if they come near my nipples (or my car, with a catalyst and a tracking device) ill break their faces!!!

[dollywobbler]

Oh FFS. Can we bin this silly "governments are all evil" talk and get back to the cars? Compared to other places in the world, we've got NOTHING to complain about really.